Talk:Digital rights management/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions about Digital rights management. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Bias Throughout Article

Anti-DRM bias pervades throughout the article. Here are three examples, listed in the format "'Beginning of example... end of example' followed by a critique':

"DRM vendors and publishers... Adobe eBook Reader." Anti-DRM example given; no pro-DRM example given.

"In the extreme... legally permitted." The word "extreme" gives this form of DRM a negative connotation. Only opposing viewpoint given to describe trusted computing.

"Several laws... will require all computer systems... (See Professor Edward Felten's... matters)." Italicizing all implies that it would be bad for all computer systems to ahve DRM. "Freedom to Tinker" appears to be generally anti-DRM.

Similar examples abound. While never explicitly endorsing either side, word usage and lack of pro-DRM examples show an anti-DRM stance.

Well, fix them. Just keep it factual. It's all of question of balance. It is very difficult to keep an even balance when the very name of the technology embodies a tendentious point of view. A pro-DRM example would be one which a) has been in use for a year or so without having been cracked, b) has not been rejected by consumers, c) iis not used in practice for any purpose beyond that of enforcing the actual legal rights of the IP owner. Offhand I can't think of a single such example, so I can't help. What exactly do you see as the big DRM success stories? Adobe eBook Reader? the Gemstar eBook devices? Microsoft Reader? The CSS encryption on DVDs? DivX? Flexplay/ez-D? The DataPlay technology? Sony's Key-2-Audio? Dpbsmith (talk) 02:09, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I second Dpbsmith's suggestion. There is a long history (see above) of complaint of bias here, but little actual work removing the alleged bias or providing balance. I would, as would Dpbsmith, provide the balance if I knew of any. From technical grounds I suspect there can't be an effective DRM scheme, but this is insufficient for a statement in the article explaining why there hasn't (isn't) one. Legally, the whole business is a swamp, and special interest pressure on legislatures world wide has made things worse. Please suggest something which provides the balance... ww 21:53, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thank you, Dpbsmith, for pointing out a phenomenon which is unfortunately pervasive here. For those interested in other areas of this debate, I've been struggling with anonymous users on trusted computing who have been attempting to insert an entire anti-DRM/anti-Microsoft rant by Ross Anderson as part of the article. Just today, I removed this stinker from computer security: "Unfortunately for users, a computer industry group led by Microsoft, in an attempt to market a different set of products and services, has taken the term "trusted system" and changed it to include making computer hardware that prevents the user from having full control over their own system". We need more eyes on this problem. It seems that when it comes to openly-hostile POV against proprietary software companies and content-producers, some Wikipedians turn a blind eye. Rhobite 00:16, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

I agree that there is a bias in the DRM article. But can we just clarify your position on the trusted computing piece. Isn't Ross Anderson one of the most repected living cryptographers, developer of one of the US federal government Advanced Encryption Standard shortlisted standards Serpent (cipher) and a widely acknowledged expert in TCPA - rather than just some random quack? You or I may not agree with everything that he says, but wouldn't his views - expressed as his own - i.e. in quotes - be a very important part of a balanced NPOV discussion about a controvertial topic - rather than simply being removed? Rather than 'censorship', wouldn't a response to each part of his discussion be appropriate and enriching? --Daedelus 19:38, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

If you want to summarize Anderson's views in a few short sentences, be my guest. He is already represented in Trusted Computing, but if you feel his views should be given more discussion in the article, please edit it. I respect Anderson's academic contributions to computing, similar to my respect for RMS. But I'm not about to let someone paste paragraphs of Anderson's (or RMS's) irrational anti-MS ranting into a supposedly neutral article. Anderson's "FAQ" is an ugly, outdated opinion piece. Please don't pass it off as some neutral reference work. Some anonymous user was pasting it in with little editing - it's not appropriate for Wikipedia, no matter how respected its author is. One more thing, quotes or no, please don't accuse me of censorship. When I find garbage in articles, I delete it. I thought about whether it would be possible to boil down and remove the bias from Anderson's article. It's not possible. Most of it is simply speculation about what Microsoft "might" or "could" do with the evil power of TC. TC chips are shipping, and his apocalyptic predictions have yet to come true. Rhobite 02:33, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

Adobe drops key DRM product

Seybold Report, Vol.4,No.22, February 23,2005

A few weeks ago, Adobe quietly announced that it is discontinuing its eBook server software, Content Server, which contains the DRM encryption functionality for PDF eBooks. Adobe no longer sells the product and will discontinue technical support for it in 2006...

Adobe’s abandonment of eBook technology leaves the technology in the hands of smaller vendors: eReader and MobiPocket, both of which produce eBook technology for handheld devices, and independent vendors of DRM for PDF files, such as Aries Systems and FileOpen — both also very small outfits...

Not quite sure how this should be factored into the article, or perhaps it belongs in the eBooks article--I'm working on an eBook timeline--but it seems interesting. Dpbsmith (talk) 13:40, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"Vendors choose restrictions that accord with their actual legal rights"

I've tried this wording:

the name "rights management" implies that vendors choose restrictions that accord with their actual legal rights, which is sometimes but by no means always the case.

I think the introductory paragraph, to be NPOV, somehow needs to capture these nuances succinctly. (I'm stating from my personal point of view):

The U. S. legal system does recognize the existence of copyrights. Even if you believe that "intellectual property" is a misnomer, that the realm of control has been inappropriately expanded, etc.
Most uses of DRM do bear a vague, rough correspondence to actual legal rights held by the vendor.
Nothing about DRM requires or even encourages it to be used in a way that matches the nuances and ambiguities of IP law. Any rough correspondence to actual rights is completely voluntary on the part of vendors.
Nothing about DRM ties it to the exercise of rights actually held by the vendor, Nothing about it even encourages vendors to use it responsibly.
Vendors are very concerned about their own rights and usually unconcerned about the fair-use rights of the customer, and in practice DRM almost invariably overreaches in the fringes and grey areas.
DRM shifts the balance of power. Traditional situation: waiters sing "Happy BIrthday" in a restaurant and gamble that Time-Warner won't go after them for royalties (grey area here is public performance versus fair use). The burden is on Time-Warner; restaurants will usually get away with it. However, if my Adobe eBook reader refuses to read "Alice in Wonderland" aloud, in practical terms there's next to nothing I can do about it. Burden is on me, and I'm not likely to spend days in call-center hell trying to reach anyone who cares about or is able to resolve the situation. Dpbsmith (talk) 13:46, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

- Authr rephrased this as "However, while the name of the technology implies that vendors can only impose restrictions that accord with their actual legal rights, the technology itself does not actually limit them to such restrictions." However, if we say that digital restrictions technology is also a name for the technology, than we cannot refer to the name of the technology. I took another stab at it but I don't like my own phrasing, either. There's a sort of double negative in talking about whether "restrictions" are "limited." Dpbsmith (talk) 23:49, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps something like this:

The name "rights management" suggests that these restrictions accord with vendors' actual legal rights; however the technology itself does not limit the control of vendors to such rights, thus the name used by opponents, "restrictions management." Authr 01:23, 2005 Apr 12 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Oh, maybe the phrase should be "does not limit the vendor's control to the exercise of such rights" because "control of vendors" sounds like the vendors are being controlled rather than controlling, and, and, and, I dunno, "exercise of such rights" sounds better to me than "such rights." Dpbsmith (talk) 01:31, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I got hung on the word "empower"

"Digital Rights Management or digital restrictions management (abbreviated DRM) is an umbrella term for any of several technical arrangements which empower a vendor of content [sic]"

I might prefer the term, allow, or rather, aid.

I will not step into this, haphazard. As such, I will not "up and edit the thing, myself."

I would suggest that the text, after the [sic] would be edited, as so:

[...] aid a vendor of digital content, for controlling how the material will be used on any electronic device that would enforce such measures.

Summary of changes: 1) "empower" nixed; neither my nor your software does lend any "power" to anything. 2) "will" replacing "may". 3) phrase shortened to "digital", more shortly identifying the nature of the material 4) enforce being the operative manner of the thing.

I consider that the edited form of that sentence is more clearly definitive of the reality of what is being mentioned, there.

chapter skip

one of the bullets:

inclusion of commercials on the "unskippable track" on DVDs reserved for the copyright notice;

I found to be (somewhat) incorrect. Most DVDs consider the commercials as a chapter, if you hit skip chapter button, you can get to the main menu.

The FBI warnings are normally considered 2 chapters.

Just to let you now.

I found this article very informative

Infringement of private rights?

I find this paragraph rather not-NPOV:

"The presence of DRM infringes private property rights. The DRM component takes control over the rest of the user's device which they rightfully own (e.g. MP3 player) and restricts how it may act, regardless of the user's wishes (e.g. preventing the user from copying a song). All forms of DRM depend on the device imposing restrictions that cannot be disabled or modified by the user. In other words, the user has no choice."

I see that key points here are:

Should the user really have full control of his device?
Does making an illegal or harmful action impossible infringe private rights?
How can we determine user wishes at the hardware level? Obviously, we can't. So then, to what extent preventing illegal actions can limit private rights?

I think answer to 1. is "yes", but this can be argued about and it's connected with 2., i. e. should an owner of a nuclear reactor have the possibility to cause meltdown?

I've added words "DRM opponents argue that" in the beggining of the paragraph. --Tweenk 18:21, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Commented out text in article

In preface

(or Digital Restrictions Management, as it is referred to by its opposition)

Digital Rights Management (or Digital Restrictions Management as it is sometimes referred to), abbreviated DRM, is an umbrella term for any of several technical arrangements which empower a vendor of content in electronic form to control how the material can be used on any electronic device with such measures installed.

The name "Rights Management" implies a publisher exercise their legal right to charge a fee for their copyrighted works . However, nothing in DRM itself guarantees that its use will be restricted in this way. For example, DRM allows vendors to abridge the buyer's fair use rights if they choose, without providing buyers with any corresponding means of asserting them. Thus some have come to call the technology by the name "restrictions management."

The actual arrangements are called technical protection measures, although the distinction between the two terms is not particularly clear. --See comment in Talk

In intro

When data is in analog form, digital management does not apply. Analog copy protection technologies are less useful to copyright holders for several reasons. It is usually easier to buy a new copy of an analog copyrighted work than to produce an equivalent copy independently. Producing an analog copy, instead of buying it, is often time-consuming, relatively expensive, and produces an inferior quality product; making the analog copy process unattractive and marginal.

Copyright holders have persistently objected to new techniques of copying and reproduction. Examples include controversies surrounding introduction of audio tape, VCR, and radio broadcast. The DRM controversy is a continuation of a long standing conflict between copyright holders and the use of any new technology for copying.

The situation changed with the introduction of digital technologies. It became possible to produce an essentially perfect copy of any digital recording with minimal effort. With the advent of the personal computer, software piracy became an issue in the 1970s. Development of the Internet in the 1990s virtually eliminated the need for a physical medium to perform perfect transfers of data (such as MP3 formatted songs).

Some would like to use DRM mechanisms to control other "proprietary information", particularly trade secrets and uncopyrightable facts in databases (see also database protection laws).

Where to put Digital Restrictions Management

During my pass at a semi-major edit, I omitted the "restrictions" version of the acronym from the intro paragraph. My feeling is that that is probably the best approach, but don't want to act entirely unilaterally. I know many editors (like myself) are highly critical of DRM, but the alternative acronym expansion feels forced in the lead paragraph. Note that the explanation of it already occurs not too far into the main article. And I think the second paragraph (above the TOC) gives a good overview of the criticism, w/o needing each clever jab that we might make.

I definitely think the term digital restrictions management should be discussed in the article (as it currently is). But unless someone can provide an indication of the usage of the term in "serious" ways, rather than entirely parodically, I don't think it should be in the lead paragraph. By analogy, think of the industry term trusted computing and its probably more accurate version treacherous computing—yeah, the latter is probably more accurate, but it's still basically a rhetorical device by critics. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 23:02, 2005 May 30 (UTC)

According to the GNU Project / FSF, the "restrictions" version is a prefered phrase term [1]. It should be mentioned early, in a well-visible way, though not necessarily in the very first sentence. Besides, the name itself, both in case of DRM and "trusted computing", is fundamentally a rhetorical device too. Opinions, comments? --Shaddack 22:26, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The "restrictions" rendering is nowhere near as common as the "rights" version, so I don't think it necessarily needs to be mentioned early or in a prominent fashion. — Matt Crypto 22:43, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Btw. I endorse Shaddack's compromise (an elaboration of my idea): put a footnote up front, and bold the "restrictions" phrase in the discussion of critics. But Matt Crypto is also certainly right that "restrictions" is in nowhere nearly as common usage as "rights."

Just because a phrase is fundamentally a rhetorical device doesn't mean it's not the proper name of the thing. For example, the term copyright embodies a particular legal and ideological concept (rhetoric) about the reproduction of texts. It's just that that rhetorical device is old enough to have made it to a the lexicon. Likewise, it's rhetorical to talk about the Great Smoky Mountains National Park or Peter the Great. I'm not opining on the greatness of either thing, but someone was when the names attached. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 01:00, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)

DMCA section out of place

I only did major revision, so far, on the first half of the article or so. Looking over the rather long DMCA section, it looks pretty out of place. I think the association is worth mentioning, but I'm thinking I should move the bulk of the DMCA/Skylarov/etc. discussion over to the article on DMCA itself. Thoughts?

It's not that I believe that we either can or should entirely separate the technical from the legal aspects. But having half the article on one specific USAian law unbalances it. DRM is a technology that may or may not be mentioned in particular laws (the technical mechanisms could exist w/o the DMCA); and moreover, there are places other than the USA where DRM content is used and sold. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 23:11, 2005 May 30 (UTC)

Shouldn't digital rights management be in lowercase?

It's not a proper noun, and that's the way it is in the title. « alerante ✆ ✉ » 23:09, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You got a point there, but I think it is because DRM is a name of a legal action, so I would assume that it should be Digital Rights Management. -netMASA (I can't remember my password. Wikipedia can't either)

More discussion of balance and name

There is still a POV issue with the name "Digital rights management." The article says, correctly:

Arguably, a technology cannot, in principle, know what legal restrictions and rights apply in a specific jurisdiction, usage context, under an external contract, or to an individual author, owner, or publisher."

But if this is true, then the name "Digital rights management" is a misnomer.

Note that the names for other technical protection mechanisms simply refer to what the mechanism _does._

The lock on your car door is just called a "lock," not an "ownership rights enabler." Everyone understands that a lock locks out anyone who does not have the key, whether or not they have a legal right of access or not.

The name "Digital rights management" is objectively incorrect. This should be stated clearly up front. To accept the name "Digital rights management" without comment is to accept the point-of-view of one side. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:06, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with dpbsmith here. I dislike DRM every bit as much as s/he does. But it's not POV to acknowledge that the term exists. The article contains quite a bit of critical material, so it's not like it is a copyright-industry PR piece.

The lock analogy is worth pursuing. It's true that the term "lock" isn't "ownership rights enabler"; but companies that make locks really do attach trade names to their products. A company might market a "TotalProtection" brand lock, or "HomeSecurity" brand, or a "CrackProof" brand, etc. (I invent those examples, they may or may not actually exist). If we were to write an article on Acme Co.'s TotalProtection brand lock, that doesn't mean that we believe it really offers "total protection" (which it obviously would not). In fact, the text of the article might discuss design problems with the lock; or discuss people who disagreed with the deceptive advertising embodied in the name.

But for all that, the article title—and first couple sentences—should still use the trade name without comment. We want to know what it is before we present criticisms or parodic terms. Likewise with "Digital rights management". Like it or not, that's the term advanced by a lot of content industry. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 22:00, 2005 Jun 10 (UTC)

dpbs, You are certainly correct that DRM is a misnomer, but misnomerhood is something English speakers seem tolerant of. As I have noted before (above), I think we're stuck -- by usage -- with a less than reasonable term, and it's not a WP thing to correct misnomers widely accepted. We here are describing (or trying to) the actual world, not correct its mistakes in this or that respect. Reluctantly, I must disagree with your suggestion that we attempt correction. Perhaps more text noting the misnomer -- rather along the lines you note here -- might be appropriate? Comment? ww 22:29, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

We hold these truths to be self-evident: (that's a joke. But please see how far you can go with me on this).

It is an objective fact that there is a technology generally known as DRM.
It is an objective fact that the people who coined it used the phrase Digital Rights Management, and that DRM is generally understood to be an initialism for that phrase.

Not merely the people who coined it, but also the vast majority of the general press who mention the term. That is, the actual expansion of the acronym isn't some obscure historical footnote (as it is for some terms), but simply the regular term used most of the time (however much an agenda the makers of the term and technologies might have). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 22:47, 2005 August 8 (UTC) Yes, OK. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:02, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

It is an objective fact that DRM is controversial.
And it is an objective fact that DRM is a pure technical mechanism which enforces whatever restrictions the vendor wishes to enforce, completely independent of what the vendor's actual legal rights might be.

What we're debating is article balance, and which of these facts are important enough to deserve mention in the lead paragraph.

It is perfectly possible to be "for" DRM and yet acknowledge that the name is loaded term, just as it is possible acknowledge that both "pro-life" and "pro-choice" are loaded terms regardless of which side one happens to be on.

My position is that "Digital rights management" is the appropriate name for the article, but since it is a loaded term, its appearance as the name of the article throws the article out of balance immediately, and the remedy is to balance it by quickly introducing the controversial aspects—specifically, right away, in the first paragraph. Dpbsmith (talk) 21:46, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

The fixation on the term is vastly overstated IMO. We already have critical comments in the very first paragraph (above the TOC), and throughout the article. But unlike a silly word game with the name, those comments actually discuss the concrete objections.

Names really don't tend to be literally accurate, but that's not the same as "loaded" exactly. The Democratic People's Republic of Korea probably isn't democratic, the "people's", nor a Republic. The first thing I colorfully learned in school about the Holy Roman Empire was that it (a) wan't holy; (b) wasn't Roman; and (c) wasn't an empire. Operation Iraqi Freedom most certainly isn't about freeing Iraq (though the rejected name "Operation Iraqi Liberation" had an accidentally descriptive acronym form).

Certainly criticism of the abovenamed things can be meritorious. But the least interesting criticism you can make is jokes about the names Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 22:54, 2005 August 8 (UTC)

Maybe I haven't made it clear... the article has been edited quite a bit since I began this section. The article in its present form, with the title as it is, and the opening paragraph as it is as of 00:06, 9 August 2005 (UTC), are fine with me. The opening paragraph in its present form provides the balance I say is needed. I'm not sure when or who removed the NPOV tag, but I concur. I don't see any significant POV problems with the current article.

I may have been continuing an argument that's now moot. Sorry. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:06, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Alan Cox

Alan Cox is described as an 'Englishman'. Is this correct? Following up the links, it seems he works in Wales and writes a personal page in Welsh. Not many Englishmen know Welsh, so it's probable he's Welsh, not English.Blaise 16:58, 2005 Jun 12 (UTC)

Perceptual vs. perceived

An anon editor changed "perceptual quality" back to "perceived quality". I'm not sure whether it's because of the old audiophiles dislike for CDs vs. vinyl, or whether it reflect a minor inaccuracy in understanding the two words.

But it's definitely "perceptual quality" that is at issue. The is the qualities at issue pertain to the senses (as opposed to other qualities media might have: durability, cost, bitwise accuracy, etc). To say the quality is merely "perceived" allows that it may be so by inference, social pressure, etc. And moreover, it may be perceived that media X has better durability than media Y (perhaps with the insinuation that it's not really so, but just a widespread myth).

I don't want to rehash the analog/digital audiophile thing. Heck, I'm one of those that thinks CDs, especially in their first few years of use, were notably degraded versus vinyl. But, for example, if I were comparing OGG Vobis and MP3 in listener tests (as opposed to, say, algorithmic issues), it would be proper to speak of the "perceptual quality" of each encoding, not of the "perceived quality".

Actually, the same editor added the redundant "digital media files. The word "files" really isn't needed, but I'll leave it for now to promote harmony. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 06:51, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)

Advocates / Opponents

For some reason, the last paragraph of the DRM opponents section was identical to the first paragraph of the DRM advocates section (with the exception of the word 'some'). It clearly belonged with advocates, so I just deleted it from the opponents section. I wasn't logged in at the time, so it'll show up as anonymous. Confuted 02:57, 2005 Aug 4 (UTC)

Nice job

I came to this article half-expecting a Stallmanesque rant against capitalist content creators, but to my relief found instead a comprehensive, balanced description of everything relevant from opposing perspectives. Fantastic, if rare, example of the Wikipedia process working as it should. I'll remember this one.

68.173.44.202 22:52, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm pleased you liked the content. But it's unfair to say that "balanced description of everything relevant" is a rare example of Wikipedia process. In contrast, I'm constantly amazed at how balanced and good quality wikipedia is!

External links

The commercial links are carrying more and more advertorial content. Should these be separated from the non-commercial links, alphabetically sorted and the SEO targeted text trimmed? I'll be back to do this in a while but I'm sure that some of the regulars would be much better at doing this. --Daedelus 14:03, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

As a rule, commercial content should not be linked to at all from a WP article. If a technology is commercially sold, refer readers to the WP article on it, not to advertisements by its maker. If it doesn't have a WP article, either create one (even a stub), or take that as a sign that it's not important enough to include. External links to standards bodies, non-commercial sites (including advocacy), or to essay material that may not be directly incorporated into the article, are OK (if germane). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 15:34, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

The removal of straight commercial links made *some* sense - if you notice I raised the issue in the first place. Of course you might say it follows that we should be going around for example removing links to car-company web sites from car entries in the wiki.

I don't want an ad for the Ford Taurus on the Automobile article, for example. But on the article for that particular car, a link to its maker is reasonable. So it's not about complete removal, but just minimizing to the narrowest context where needed.

HOWEVER, now I think that this is being taken a stage further and links to the official WWW Virtual Library (VL) pages on the topic are being removed.

I apologize if I did that. If so, I was being careless; links to VL, or to any general directory of DRM companies, is very reasonable. Or if it was someone else, I don't apologize, but still support restoring the useful resources :-). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 19:48, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

WWW Virtual Library (VL) is the oldest catalogue of the Web, started by Tim Berners-Lee, the creator of html and the Web itself, in 1991 at CERN in Geneva, Switzerland. It is widely recognised as being amongst the highest-quality guides to particular sections of the Web. It is not a commercial catalogue and links to it are not commercial spam.

I also noticed that links to just about the only up to date list of companies providing DRM has been removed - presumably wiki readers must not have access to specifics only generalizations and should only have information about big brand names rather than exhastive lists. Anyway links that lead to comparative information about commercial products are not commercial links. Also disappeared was just about the only popular exposition of the relationship of Digital Rights Management and Kerckhoff's axiom of the primacy of keys over codes - I'm not sure how this is "commercial" (maybe the editor thought Kerckhoff was a brand name?) . Again there is the idea that links from the wiki should not allow understanding of specifics only generalizations. I think this unthinking overzealousness greatly weakens the value of the whole resource as an information source. --Daedelus 19:20, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Coincidental

Exactly the right word:

 coincidental 
 adj : occurring or operating at the same time; "a series of coincident 
 events" [syn: coincident, coinciding, concurrent, cooccurring, simultaneous]

I'm pretty sure I'm the first one to use that particular word in relating DRM restrictions to legal restrictions in the lead. Either way, it's quite precise. This is different from "accidental" BTW; but it's also different from insinuating a causal alignment is possible.

Of course, Dpbsmith's latest edit looks fine also. An earlier edit suggested "subset" which is just wrong. DRM restrictions might allow either more or less than legal restrictions relative to a particular act of copying. The point is that once a technology is fixed in concrete form, it can longer track changes in the legal status of a particular copyrighted work (which might change because of law, contract, court rulings, or through other external events). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 20:08, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

To me at least, coincidentally implies that one thing happened with no knowledge of the other. Either way, I agree that the current edit works well. I don't agree that DRM *cannot* react to changes, though. Perhaps none do (Steam comes to mind as one that might), but that doesn't mean none ever will. --Tom Edwards 20:33, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

DRM cannot in general react to change of legal status of a work. Some hypothetical scheme might "phone home" to a server that encoded the latest changes in law; that would track global changes in legal copy restrictions/rights. But other restrictions can be individual to a work: If Jane Writer signs a contract with John Reader authorizing copying of her work (according to certain terms), the legal authorization is in effect the moment the contract is signed; not only when or if the fact somehow propogates to the software. Moreover, fair use is very contextual in ways that software can simply not determine. In some contexts, copying 100 words of a written work violates copyright; in other contexts copying the exact same 100 words is fair use. A large set of legal conditions apply to when a copy falls under fair use. Yeah, a DRM system could count words copied or the like, but that's simply not the legal rule. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 21:53, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

I see what you mean. That's certainly something to point out in th article. But wouldn't in those cases an unprotected copy of the work be given? If so, that should be made clear as well. --Tom Edwards 06:34, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean here: "unprotected copy would be given"?! That's exactly the opposite of DRM, now isn't it? Are you saying that without DRM on a work, it wouldn't have DRM? If so, that is a tautology. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 06:48, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I mean that if additional rights were given on a per-user basis, it would make more sense to give them an unprotected copy of the work instead of some sort of license update. --Tom Edwards 17:38, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

But this is an article about DRM, not about contracts. Maybe I'm misreading your intent, but it seems like your suggesting something along the lines of "the pitfalls of DRM can be avoided by not using DRM"; which I agree with, but is kinda outside the topic of this article.

In practice, your solution is likely to be more difficult, and less workable, than an easy hypothetical suggests: E.g. if Sony only produces broken CDs (non-spec w/ DRM), an artist on one of zillion Sony labels cannot simply buy her own CD pressing plant to fulfill a contract. Or if WMV is the format a video is produced in... Now obviously a specific situation has all kinds of issues about who owns what, what permissions are given, what contracts are signed, which technologies are used; but in many permutations, the existence of DRM can and does prevent legal rights from being exercised. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 18:14, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I understand that, but at the other end of the scale it is more accurate to point it out than imply that once a work has been protected, it is always like that (no matter how obvious the opposite may be!). --Tom Edwards 21:30, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

<---

Guys, I'm going to toss a few thoughts into the pot here, if only to reset the : counter. Control of reproduction rights in a work (then the only exemplar was literary) was thought to be perpetual at first. The Conger of 17th cent UK certainly thought and behaved so. The Statute of Queen Anne ended that. The US Constitution explicitly provided for a limited term of monopoly control, including reproduction, in 1787. Assorted enactments, court holdings and so on established a fair use doctrine, but we're still talking about literary stuff, plus now paper or photographic images. Very little to no international coordination as to copyright which annoyed Dickens (in one direction) and Twain (in the other) no end; just to name some prominent ones. Around 1900, player piano rolls, sound and moving film all pose considerable problems. In the US, and eventually elsewhere, there is established an obligatory performance license and an apparatus to collect such fees on behalf of the copyright owneres. In the twenties, radio broadcast added a twist to the sound recording copyright problem. Note, to this point, copyright term is still shortish, varies a bit between copyrighted things, and the longest available was the European literary right (life of creator plus fifty years if I recall correctly).

Introduction of magnetic tape recording for consumers post WWII panicked the recording industry and they tried to strangle it at birth, just as the movie and TV people tried to do with the VCR some years later. The recording people tried again when digital recording techniques were developed, and the movie folks tried again and again with laser disks, CD-video, DVD-video, and so on. Still a limited length monopoly right, though the limit was expanding at publisher behest. Note not at creator behest, but the holder of the copyright which generally becomes some large enterprise whose business is not creation but exploitation those rights. The longest term possible is the only acceptable to such and so, in the US, they have expanded steadily. At current expansion rates, Mickey Mouse will never enter the public domain, though he's long exceeded the original life of the copyright Disney acquired on creation in 1922. Since the rights involved are arbitrary and exist only as the result of statute and precedent, it is inevitable that lawyers get rung in and this accounts for a good bit of the confusion.

So let's examine a specific case. I acquire a recording of Trent Lott and his Oxford Cheerleaders in 1970. All numbers (lyrics and music) are original and created that year, and the performance is also by the group. All copyrights have been retained by the creators and are therefore nicely in one place. No need to go nosing around on a copyright treasure hunt if I want to license; thouhg there are some automatic licenses (broadcast and such) that I have now. Assuming my little LP lasts long enough, all these copyrights will lapse ca 2060. But the US Congress has extended the copyright term several times and so expiration is receeding into the redshifted distance.

But, if I acquire a copy of a new recording of the same stuff in 2005 on a DVD with the surviving Cheerleaders doing their thing as well as teys till can, the situation is legally the same. The difference is that my new recording has a different expiration date as to the performance itself (it being the creation of the tottering Cheerleaders edition), and is protected by some sort of DRM. I cannot take my precious DVD elsewhere because there is regional locking. Not a copyright issue at all, merely a marketing control. I can't even really exercise my automatic right of copying for braodcast purposes, because I can't make a copy to send ot multitude of centrally programmed radio stations whose listeners are all drooling for the latest, geriatric, versions by the Cheerleaders. When the material goes into the public domain, the DRM will still prevent me from making copies which will then be my right. And until then, any additional license I negotiate with the holders will not be recognized by the DRM becasue the lawyers who specified it on behalf of large enterprise holders didn't include that.

When one understands the legal situation (a mess, and getting steadily boggier), supplier claims that this or that is their legal right and not yours are seen to generally wobbly. And regardless of any of that, the DRM you find will not match the legal situation, and rarely, even the supplier's claims as to the legal situation.

It's this disconnect between the legal 'reality', the actual DRM functionality, the engineering's actual possibilities if designed and enacted correctly, and the end user's impression of what his purchase has acquired that causes the troubles.

Some of this perspective deserves to be in the article, but I've tried, without much success, and success would in any case be lawyeristically contingent and fudgy and mostly unreadable. Might ruin the article. Still important though, since Vista is due out now Q2 next year and will supposedly contain some of this deep in the OS and imposed on all comers as an obligatory result. Readers will need some understanding of some of it. ww 07:52, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

DeCSS problem

"Although it has been argued that programs like DeCSS make copyright infringement easier, this system has never been effective in preventing illegal mass copying of DVDs by criminal gangs, even before the system was found to be flawed."

This doesn't make sense towards the end. Shouldn't it be 'even after the system', or 'until the system', depending on the meaning? --Tom Edwards 09:59, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

This passage is suggesting that systems like CSS didn't have an effect on preventing the mass copying, even before DeCSS showed that it was flawed Johme 16:46, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

European legislation

In the preamble, it states "Some types of DRMs have been recently declared illegal in France and the European Community is expected to rule on a ban of DRM systems." Can anyone provide further information on this? Who expects the EC to rule a ban of DRM systems? Does anyone have a reference to further discussion on this please?--Bc42 12:05, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

There is no ban in France: the French parliament is discussing a law about DRM, but nothing is final yet.Lucasbfr 18:53, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Some news for thought. (Sony and recent events)

http://www.cdfreaks.com/news/12738

DRM boycotts hurt Sony's music sales - musicians frustrated Posted by Dan Bell (at CDFreaks) on 27 November 2005 - 15:07 - Source: BusinessWeek Online

Uncharacterized?

From the article:

In Europe, there are several dialog activities, that are uncharacterized by its consensus-building intention:

Can anyone tell me what this sentece means (and, preferably, then replace it)? Shinobu 14:41, 3 December 2005 (UTC)